User blog:Care Level/MVP Status
You know those games where you're hands-down performing better than your team? How about being rewarded for that? I recommend adding an "MVP" feature to Solo Queue: *At the end of each match, players get the option to rank up to two members of their team (excluding themselves) and two members of the opposing team as "MVP" and, optionally, "Runner Up". *Players rated MVP get 3 points toward MVP status for that game (MVP points are not cumulative); Runner Up votes get 1 point toward the same. Points recieved from duo-queued teammates are halved. *The player with the most points after voting recieves MVP status; the player with the second-most recieves Runner-Up status. *The MVP for a team does not lose LP in the event of a loss. The Runner-Up's LP penalty is halved. *In the event of a win, the MVP gains double LP; the Runer-Up gains 1.5x LP. *In the event of a tie for either MVP or Runner-Up, the LP benefits are divided evenly among the candidates: two MVPs would each recieve 25% LP loss for a loss (there will be no Runner-Up, since first and second place will both have more points than the would-be Runner-Up); 3 MVPs would recieve 133% LP gain on a win, etc. If the tie is for Runner-Up, the benefits are divided evenly among those candidates while the MVP recieves full benefits. *After leaving the lobby, players recieve the appropriate notifications if they've won MVP or Runner-Up (similar to the Honor system), accompanied by the amount of LP that they've gained for their rating (MVP, without a tie, would recieve LP equal to the amount that they gained/lost in the lobby; Runner-Up would recieve 50% of their lobby-displayed change). This is important, because it always '''feels '''like a bonus, as opposed to a lack of punishment. This gives teams the option to reward players that do well, individually, somewhat outside of the team's overall performance. Some of the counterarguments include: *"If a player is good, they should be able to carry their team to victory", but this is simply not always the case. Consider the scenario in which Player A is hands-down the best on their team, but Players X and Y on the opposite team are equally as skilled as Player A. Player A cannot reasonably be expected to carry this game. *"Some champions (like Annie and Kha'Zix) and roles (like ADC and Jungle) have more presence than others; they're more visible in games and so more likely to recieve votes." This is true. The most complete solution would be to weight MVP points on a per-champion basis based on consistent ratings for that champion (for example, if Riven consistently scores twice the MVP points as Sona across all matches, points voted for a Riven would be worth half as much as those voted for a Sona after weighting), but there may be other workable solutions short of this. *"The total LP in the game would increase. For each game, on average, more LP is being gained than lost." Possible solutions include broadening the rating system in order to penalize the least-recognized members of a team (as recieving the least votes for MVP does, ostensibly, constitute being voted "LVP") or weighting the overall LP gain on victory and loss on defeat. Alternatively, the total LP gained/lost for a team can be calculated before votes, and, after votes, the total LP loss can be redistributed with the after-vote percentages of gain/loss shared, weighted (as in the current system) based on MMR. There may be more objections, but I feel that none of them would be insurmountable. If you've got one, go ahead and comment it below so that I might address it! Category:Blog posts